That's a valid point but you're missing his. The business end of it is deeply invested in the political side but the real driving factor behind this decision has to do with policy and when push comes to shove production of big ticket items like food and energy politics often takes a back seat to policy

This proposal is somewhat more complex than it appears on the surface. Much of the area they're talking about has already been drilled. I have family that worked up at the North Slope and when the whole ANWAR debate was raging my sister was more baffled than anything. "There are already dozens and dozens of wells and drill sites in the area they're talking about. It's not the pristine wilderness some folks are making it out to be. That ship sailed 30 years ago."

The problem with the profit argument in the near term is that the pipeline is already running at full capacity and no one is exactly chomping at the bit to start building another one. The pipes are a pain in the ass because they're actually two pipes, one inner main conduit which the oil flows through, outside of that there is a insulating layer/heating element that keeps the crude warm enough to flow and then a second pipe around the whole thing. The major problem is that the inner heating element in conjunction with the extremely cold air outside the outer casing inevitably creates condensation which results in rust.

The maintenance costs are significant. BP attempted to get around the issue some years ago by cutting the maintenance budget to the bone and the result was a massive spill at the main facility.

What they'd really like to do is tanker it south through the strait of course so one of the more craven aspects to the deal is that they're hoping and praying for the ice to disappear so they can ship it out. Of course it's still the arctic which means rough seas and unpredictable weather in any case particularly in the strait and the Bering sea

So why go to all this trouble? For the sake of energy independence? Doubtful. Not that there isn't plenty of oil up there, there is, but the conditions are among the most challenging on the planet.

This seems like another in a long list of moves Washington has been making over the past few years to put as much downward pressure , real or imagined, on oil prices. That right there is the heart and soul of the problem. We do not have an real energy policy and we don't seem one damn bit interested in adopting one that's actually going to be effective. The general wisdom is that even if we and the rest of the G8 transitioned over to a sustainable low/no emissions system it wouldn't matter because the balance of the worlds countries would not only continue to use oil and coal but they would likely do so at an increased rate due to cheaper prices caused by a the drop in demand. There's something to that argument but not enough to discourage my yearning to live in a congested, semi industrial, area like mine without having to breath all of this shit in every day.